tv [untitled] May 5, 2012 2:00pm-2:30pm PDT
other question? next item. >> the next section is accessory uses. the perce item would include the -- first item would include rc zoning districts, which are residential-commercial districts located in areas like van ness and the tenderloin. it would remove numerical restrictions and in said stet -- set performance-based restrictions such as noise level. the legislation would also increase from one quarter -- from 1/4 to 1/3 the space occupied. it would also remove number of employees. it also removes intent of the
primitive accessories. i have put in a chart that hopefully explains the intent behind this. you can see the districts that are primarily residential and the districts that are mixed use. those that are residential are 1/4, and those that are excess reduces our 1-- accessory uses are 1/3. that is it for a successor uses, if you have any questions. -- for accessory uses, if you have any questions. commissioner antonini: the staff position? >> we are for it. we see the logic of making it more representational. commissioner antonini: thank you. >> the next section is non- conforming uses. this deals with neighborhood commercial districts. currently, uses can change to
another use in that district, if it is conditionally permitted, without the conditional use authorization. this would require conditional use authorization if a non- conforming use changes to something. this brings consistency to how these uses are entitled in various districts. the second item deals with other districts. currently, they can convert to a dwelling unit without complying with density or off street parking. we propose that any nonconforming use can be converted to an unspecified number of dwelling units in a district where such use is principally permitted, without regard to the requirements of the code with respect to residential density or of street parking requirements. the department is concerned the legislation removes the 1-minute
limitation that is currently in place, and the lack of review. we are recommending that only one unit be allowed. this would remove a new provision in the code that allows surface parking lots in c3 to operate within perpetuity. we support this use, because it is consistent with the general plan. we would like clarifying language to be added, and would like these uses to come back for a temporary use permit every five years instead of every two years. those are the issues under non- conforming uses. commissioner moore: i appreciate your looking at it more carefully. i would agree. >> last section -- washington-
broadway and the waterfront special use district. there was confusion last time about the boundaries of this. the confusion came from the legislative by just had one description, and the legislation did something else. the map you were originally had -- this combines uses. that is a brief explanation of that. it would allow residential parking to be waived.
item for wood to make surface parking lots nonconforming uses. --t item 4 would make surface parking lots nonconforming uses. the legislation's would allow off street parking requirement to be waived, the waterfront. that concludes the items. i can answer questions about that as well. commissioner wu: is this the right time to ask about the broadway district? can you just explain -- >> it is in the next item.
commissioner wu: i can hold my question. commissioner moore: when you are suggesting combining washington and broadway, that means you are leaving chinatown out, correct? the reason i am asking, by combining, you are deleting one comment -- one, they are not identical. they are -- that is the reason why they are two districts. by leaving out the north side west of columbus, it becomes an altogether different thing. just for disclosure, it needs to be explained for exactly how we are combining, what is common to both, what is different. >> if you look at page 4, the
chart, that shows what the washington-broadway sud does. item a >> sense of street parking requirements -- exempts of street parking requirements. the one exception is development on lots that are larger than 20,000 square feet in the chinatown community business district. removing it would have little impact on eds. in addition to that, phase three would eliminate minimum parking requirements in the chinatown district. commissioner moore: doesn't mean that cars would only push the
congest and further out? isn't that what it means? >> i think chinatown does not have that much parking and it. -- in it. there is very little required parking in chinatown. the washington-broadway was done in the 1980's we were still trying to deal with that sort of issue. commissioner moore: may i disagree with you? in the block between columbus up towards the tunnel, where there is double, triple parking all the time. public right of way is blocked for the lack of parking in that area and it is a misnomer to say that it is all transit. it is not. >> i am sorry if you understood
that was the way i was saying. chinatown does not require parking. by removing it from the washington-broadway sud, you are not changing much in that respect. commissioner moore: i do not agree with that assessment. >> the provisions are already in place in chinatown. by removing chinatown, we are not having any net change on that. the underlying provisions would still remain in effect. it may sound like there is a broader issue, it there is not a large enough parking requirement in chinatown, and maybe that is something to look at. commissioner moore: that's might be one way of addressing it. there is somewhat of a requirement not being met.
many people come to this location for going to large restaurants. there are coming from the suburbs and they are searching to park somewhere. that is creating an area of the contest in which is not addressed by current zoning. -- ingestion which is not addressed by current zoning. >> currently, the washington- probably provides for certain parking exemptions. this is unnecessary because the underlying chinatown zoning design require parking. granting an exemption where parking is not required does not make sense. we are looking at addressing this overlapping code provision that does not make much sense. what you are speaking to or greater concerns about overall parking concerns in chinatown. the change we are making would have no effect on that. commissioner moore: current trends continued to take the current position and expand
them? >> currently, parking in chinatown does not require -- is generally not required in the zoning district. the special u.s. district provides exemptions from parking requirements. there is no point of having exemptions when you do not have a parking requirement to begin with. i know it does not make a lot of sense, but that is why we are trying to change it. it gives an exemption were parking is not required. the second, it does not permit customer service areas like drive-throughs and things like that. in chinatown, they did not allow that either. it is another redundant control.
>> because we have a commissioner -- >> i am referring to b in my report. >> i want to make sure that we are clear. >> the third one requires a parking lot or a storage garage to get a conditional use from the planning commission. again, another redundant control. either require a conditional use or prohibit it. that really has little impact. there is one aspect of excess free parking lots are permitted. they still would be, so if there is concern at of accessory
parking lots going in to chinatown, which staff does not see as a huge problem, if there is a concern, you can make that part of your motion. and then the final talks about wholesale establishments. that is only for the washington- broadway sud. that was the only difference between washington-broadway sud 1 and 2. commissioner moore: on page 13, the way it would be, it would no longer permit permanent parking lots.
why is it only two years versus what you are doing? these kinds of things are not as easily changeable. >> right now, downtown is a two- year temporary use permit as well. we are recommending that it be changed to 5. for the surface parking lots in the washington-broadly, we are not asking that they be prohibited. we are asking they be conditional use instead. the only way you could have one would be through a temporary use permit. commissioner moore: i am still questioning why it is two years. >> the staff recommendation differs from the proposal. we are recommending that rather than prohibiting, it's become a conditional use permit under staff's recommendation, there
would not be a two-year having to come back to the commission. i do understand what you are saying. we have recommended elsewhere that the to your change to five years. -- two-year change to five years. commissioner moore: did to comment on that? i do not think i heard them. >> that was the last item that i did. i might have rushed through. currently, parking can be waived by the zoning administrator in the waterfront sud 1 and 3. this legislation would change it so that the waterfront assud2 could get parking waivers. commissioner antonini: on the issue regarding the 2 to 5
years, will be the case if the temporary parking lot is not approved? it would have to just be vacant. or whatever they choose to do. >> correct. if they can back to do a temporary parking lot for five years on the commission decided not to grant it, they could not operate a surface parking lot there. commissioner antonini: i understand the intent to try to nudge development, but i am not sure every two years would be cumbersome. it seems the five-year might be the better solution. >> we are not recommending that they be prohibited, so -- if you took the staff's recommendation,
it would be a non-issue for surface parking lot. commissioner antonini: ok, i think i understand what you are saying. thank you. >> any other questions? ok. anything further? public comment. >> good afternoon. executive director. on this issue of the washington- broadway sud, it does not come anywhere near port property. i did not understand why they have objected. i understand their concerns about parking restrictions in the waterfront, but the washington-broadway is a few blocks from the nearest port
parcel. i would urge you to support that. five years is more reasonable. this is the jackson square area. golden gateway lies between the port. we would urge you to support that, but with a five-year pro weisel. -- proviso. per our previous discussion, talking about jobs and housing needs, one of the balances is trying to nudge those lots towards development so we can jobs and housing. create some incentives for those developments.
we think it is a balanced package. we would urge you to make that change. i guess that is all i have to say. thank you for listening to these presentations and the excellent questions. the other thing about the china down districts, right now -- chinatown district, right now, there are minimum parking requirements in the district. this amendment does propose to get rid of them. section 161 permits exceptions. it permits exceptions for the washington-broadly, at another section permits exceptions in the chinatown sud. there are reduplicate sections in 161. both sections are not needed. you just need one.
if the issue is the maximum should be, how much parking is permitted, that is not what is before you today. the question is for those projects that do not think any parking, can they get the exceptions? there is no substantive change there. thank you very much. >> any additional public comment? commissioner miguel: i appreciate the explanation from staff because key as we have been going to this legislation -- because as we have been gone for this legislation, it was very difficult to try to take it and comprehensively. what is going on and what supervisor chu has gone into putting it into three separate sections has been very helpful
to this commission and certainly to this commissioner. i also appreciate the work that staff has done on edge because it clarifies a number of issues. at least in my mind. i find myself very much in agreement with the staff's recommendations on this. i do not think they fly in the face of what supervisor is trying to do. i fully support staffs recommendations on this. i totally appreciate the amount of work that it takes. the initial work on the continuing work. commissioner moore: can i would
like to say that the motion in front of us does not reflect staff's recommendation, which surprised me. i am in support of the majority of staff's recommendation, but that language is not reflected in the motion in front of us. i am not quite sure how we do this. i know that what you're trying to instruct us, it would need to be rephrased. i might be wrong on that. the other thing i would like to ask, i would like to have all waterfront sud considerations taken out and brought back to us when we talk about the other
waterfront issues. on page 13, the parking exceptions in the waterfront sud. i would like to consider that under a separate discussion. >> i do not know if we can do that. commissioner antonini: i was going to try to make a motion on these items. i see commissioner wu has some comments. commissioner wu: generally -- specifically, i think there is some indication that it could be real looked at. i think the logic does not follow right now. the actual changes look like they're trying to make them like some of the other districts, but the name of it is kind of funny.
this report answers a lot of the questions that we had from the last hearing. that is very helpful, but it took a long time for us to get here. i just want to reiterate that i think the direction from the commission is this prodi legislation has been too complex and has covered too many issues. we've got into a place where we can distill it much better. thank you for this report, but it was difficult to get here. >> this has come a long way in breaking it up and boiling it down has made it easier for all of us to understand. but it is still confusing to some degree. i think we will get emotion to support, but i want to clarify -- gets a motion to support,
but i want to clarify. if we move this forward, it does not mean the others go any faster. commissioner antonini: i agree with what has been said by the other commissioners. thank you for making it much more palatable that we can digest. i will try to make a motion that supports what staff has recommended. on the first part of this, and we would be saying that on surface parking, we will allow that by cu. is that correct? >> correct. commissioner antonini: one would assume that cu is allowed, but
doesn't have to be renewed in a certain period of time? >> no. commissioner antonini: we are ok with the parcel delivery provisions with the garage storage provision, storage yards, and with the gas stations. that is part of the motion. we move on to the limited corner commercial uses. my understanding from what staff has recommended is to just delete the movement from the corner 100 feet. leave it as it is currently in place. >> correct. commissioner antonini: the surface dwelling unit conversion position, that was a
no on that part. the second portion of that. >> not requiring additional. commissioner antonini: it is duplicitous because you already have that. and then we go to accessory items regarding hp situations and things like that, which we are supporting of as drafted. >> correct. commissioner antonini: and then we get to nonconforming uses, and we are requiring a cu for a nonconforming use even if -- maybe you can clarify that. >> if you have a nonconforming use, you can change to any use. without having to go through the process. this would change that to require to go to the conditional use process. commissioner antonini: that
seems consistent. that is fine. nonconforming dwelling unit conversion to housing, delete a group housing, delete multiple units. when-tenant -- one-unit use only. >> correct. commissioner antonini: ok. the surface, we will allow that to buy cu, a temporary use for five years. the same thing with the washington-broadway sud, the same kind of provision with a five-year renewal. >> that is our recommendation. commissioner antonini: it seems
consistent that we are not in here every two years. i realize we want to get them out of having parking lots, but it might be a little too much process. >> you would want them to be prohibited in the washington- broadway sud? and have to come back five years? commissioner antonini: we do want them to be allowed by cu, but every five years instead of every two years. >> they do not have to come back. if you take staff's recommendation, they are conditionally permiteted. commissioner antonini: maybe we will go with status condition on that. i am a little confused, but that would be fined. -- fine. i believe that is all that, if i am not mistaken.